tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.comments2023-04-02T07:03:21.099-05:00Principium UnitatisBryan Crosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comBlogger1482125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-46158615593219898382013-08-19T06:49:02.992-05:002013-08-19T06:49:02.992-05:00I can confirm ST that someone is still reading des...I can confirm ST that someone is still reading despite the year and if I may be permitted, I would like to add this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5NT32Y-Mrk which is very informative on the subject of Sola Scriptura. Hopefully Bryan you will allow this post despite my odd 'google identity', Szczęść Boże, Adam Kosterski. adtheladhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11547876597884642821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-39137382512548943202013-08-15T14:21:17.432-05:002013-08-15T14:21:17.432-05:00@Bryan - found your blog thanks to following Jason...@Bryan - found your blog thanks to following Jason's post entitled 'I fought the Church, and the Church won'. Extremely illuminating to this lapsed Catholic. Many, many thanks to you and to Jason.<br />@ST - as you can see, someone is still reading the article and all the posts and benefiting enormously. God bless, A.adtheladhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11547876597884642821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-45971079595772994282013-04-28T14:42:50.947-05:002013-04-28T14:42:50.947-05:00Bryan,
I agree with Mateo. Wow! Amazing! I real...<br /> Bryan,<br /><br /> I agree with Mateo. Wow! Amazing! I really enjoyed this article, thank you.<br /> <br /> I have a question. Is grace and attribute of God or do we speak of grace as "being", as we say of love; "God is love"? If grace is a quality added, does a person sense a lack of supernatural grace when they sin mortaly and does the sense mean a reasoned recognition, or a pained emotion of conscience? I ask this because it seems to me that to grieve the Holy Spirit means to cause Him to leave. I gather this from King David's "take not they Holy Spirit from me".<br /> I have to admit, upon becoming Catholic I have a hard time "seeing" the second person of the Holy Trinity, I seem to think more abstractly and I'm not sure this is so good considering the incarnation showed us God. My mind works to reconcile what I have learned about antiquity's notions of God and piety; that is, things like grace, virginity, elements of fire and water,mysticism. I used to concentrate my minds-eye on Jesus but now I tend to think of the beatific vision in terms of light.<br /><br />Thank you,<br />SusanSusanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12135596629008907889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-56490733392934617062013-01-02T08:58:16.866-06:002013-01-02T08:58:16.866-06:00Great article, I just wanted to point out one thin...Great article, I just wanted to point out one thing....first of all this was written I believe in 2008 and I'm writing this in 2013....I still hope somebody may read it. Second, I read most comments but I didn't have time to go through all of them so maybe this was already mentioned. The problem is not only the private interpretation of scriptures because some protestants may say it is no different than popes private interpretation but the thing is the catholic church does not need to interpret the bible, it came after the church. It supported the oral tradition that was in place already..."it is useful" but it's not "the pillar and bulwark of truth" to quote the bible itself. So fastforward 1800 years and somebody says I have the bible I don't need the church that gave me the bible which, may I add, was put together because it supported the teaching that was in place. Pax ChristiSThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09143555606382772921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-83334537490015745922012-03-04T22:00:16.356-06:002012-03-04T22:00:16.356-06:00(continued)
In regard to the assurance, I have tu...(continued)<br /><br />In regard to the assurance, I have turned my attention to your discussion with Nathan on Called to Communion. I see from this that it is very important that we on the Protestant side distinguish presumption from the assurance of faith. If I understand the Catholic concerns correctly, we are engaging in presumption if we seek for something beyond "moral certainty" that we are in the state of grace. The relevant threefold distinction is between moral certainty, the certainty of faith, and metaphysical certainty. Well, we're creatures susceptible to doubt and fear. If one were to think long enough, even if one were the most holy person on earth, it should not be hard to find reasons to doubt that one is repentant for one's sins. Moral certainty does not seem to cut it for many people, but the nature of faith is such that it takes those fears and doubts and says, "Nevertheless, God is true…". I don't think we are ever going to inoculate ourselves fully against those creeping doubts. If we're worried about our repentance or our faith, we should ask God to strengthen it. I think this line of thinking is possibly the cure for the ill. Unrepentant people can deceive themselves, but I don't think they spend much time worrying about this or clinging to Christ in faith. Wouldn't we agree that in light of our creatureliness, faith means living in the robust hope of forgiveness and everlasting life and in repentance in spite of not possessing metaphysical certainty of our salvation? In that sense, then, we need One we can cling to with the certainty of faith.<br /><br />Faith and repentance are distinct concepts for Protestants, but you can't separate them. Faith depends entirely on the Word of God. Repentance also. The obstinate and unrepentant adulterer or fornicator shows by his way of life and his lack of repentance that he does not really believe God's Word about his sin and that he does not believe what is true about himself through his baptism. No such person should expect assurance of his salvation. If he believes in the Word of God, that is impossible. I would say quite simply from a Protestant perspective such a person does not have living faith. The external Word of God is enough to condemn him and it doesn't take a great deal of reflection on his part to see it.<br /><br />No, when we speak about not resting our assurance on ourselves but on Christ, this also has reference to the Word. No Protestant worth his salt would say that you never examine yourself or fail to constantly confess and repent for sins. Faith alone, Christ alone is intended to keep people from morbid introspection. The more people keep their eyes to Christ alone, the more they are aware of that for which they must repent. In this way looking outside of ourselves is the best way to see what is inside of us. It is in this way that we distinguish between presumption and assurance. Unreflective and not looking at Christ is presumption. Reflecting on Christ and his Word and repenting is the life of living faith.Jamie Stoberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00028730927580530298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-77902186723500684252012-03-04T21:58:38.040-06:002012-03-04T21:58:38.040-06:00(continued)
You write:
"Keep in mind that ...(continued)<br /><br />You write:<br /> <br />"Keep in mind that these are two paradigms, and my point in this post isn't so much to criticize either paradigm, but to present the two paradigms as paradigms, and help persons on both sides see the two paradigms. My conclusion (earlier in this process) was that the Catholic paradigm, as such, is not at all easy to refute, or even show to be inferior to the Protestant paradigm. So take my responses below in that way."<br /><br />I was attempting to echo this same sentiment in the first paragraph of my previous response. I obviously do not possess the same comprehensive grasp of my Protestant (now Lutheran) paradigm that you do in regard to the Catholic paradigm, but what I'm trying to do is express the paradigm and why from within itself it disagrees with yours. Our engagement so for has been fruitful in that you have successfully done the same with yours. I only hope to do as well. We can only engage the paradigms with one another in a constructive way if we first clearly communicate them to one another. No, if I was trying to simply refute the Catholic paradigm you would be the wrong person for me to attempt to do so with ;-)Jamie Stoberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00028730927580530298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-89532789658926863512012-03-04T18:46:23.086-06:002012-03-04T18:46:23.086-06:00Bryan,
I was just putting forth some preliminary ...Bryan,<br /><br />I was just putting forth some preliminary observations as a Protestant about areas within the Roman Catholic paradigm that did not quite make sense to me. Do not regard them as an attempt to refute your paradigm. I was simply speaking within a Protestant paradigm about why, according to the logic of our paradigm, we differ from your paradigm. I thought you had wanted us to answer your questions from our paradigm. As such, your response to my observation that supernatural gifts should plausibly be thought of as living by appeal to your own tradition really has little more basis outside of its own paradigm than my observation that supernatural gifts should be regarded as living does outside a Protestant paradigm, which assumes that because the Word of God is living and the content of faith is the Word of God, then the faith of one who assents with trust from the heart to the living Word of God is living. <br /><br />In regard to my question: "If dead faith is a supernatural gift, how can exist in one who is not in a state of grace?" I had simply failed to understand a distinction within the Catholic paradigm. Thanks for clarifying for me the distinction between supernatural gifts on the one hand and sanctifying grace on the other.<br /><br />In paragraph 1 of response 12 in this thread where you reference my question: "If dead faith is not a supernatural gift, how is it different…?" I was simply restating the "on the other hand" question you raised for Protestants in your post. I was answering from the point of if it's not, as the question asks. The observations on which the tentative assumption was based I presented prior.<br /><br />And I admit that perhaps in regard to dead faith, I'm not entirely sure how a Protestant paradigm would deal holistically with the question. I do think we would both agree that an intellectual understanding of mysteries that is a gift from God is not saving if it is not lodged also within one's heart. Never are beings without love and trust in God regarded as in a saving relationship with him. The understanding of divine mysteries they possess may be "faith" and it may be supernatural, but this denotes something distinct from the faith alone by which Protestants believe salvation comes.Jamie Stoberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00028730927580530298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-35718639696377419822012-03-01T18:42:23.740-06:002012-03-01T18:42:23.740-06:00(cont.)
You write: "If dead faith is not a s...(cont.)<br /><br />You write: "If dead faith is not a supernatural gift, how is it different .... " Dead faith is a supernatural gift, for the reason explained above. Human reason alone is incapable of grasping the supernatural mysteries.<br /><br />You write: "Dead faith, which we might call natural belief, .... " The problem with that claim is that it is Pelagian. It grants to man, an ability by his own nature and power, to believe supernatural mysteries, that require grace in order to be grasped and affirmed by creatures.<br /><br />You write: "... rests fundamentally on the matter of assurance. Perhaps it would be better to speak about that particular issue in another place..." No, please feel free to write about it here, if you wish.<br /><br />You write, "I will not deny the presence of charity within the faith that saves." -- That is good (in the sense of coming very close to being common ground).<br /><br />You write, "Yes, because Protestants do not place faith exclusively in the intellect but place it primarily in the heart, when we say "faith alone" we do not mean what Catholics fear we mean with the term "faith alone." At that level, our disagreement is perhaps merely semantic." If only it were merely semantic. In Catholic doctrine, faith is a virtue. Virtues are acquired dispositions that exist only in powers. And faith is an acquired (in this case supernaturally infused) disposition in the intellect to assent to what God has revealed on the authority of God who revealed it. The assent requires an act of the will, but assenting to what God has revealed is an act of the intellect, because it is not merely saying the words "I do;" it is actually believing what has been divinely revealed. And believing a proposition (as opposed to merely asserting a proposition) is an act of the intellect moved to assent by the will. See <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3004.htm#article2" rel="nofollow">Summa Theologica II-II Q.4 a.2</a>.<br /><br />Regarding assurance, if you were living in obstinate fornication or adultery, and you said, "I base my assurance on Christ alone, not myself," then you would be self-deceived. And no Church Father would say otherwise. Therefore you too must look at your own life, if you want assurance of being in a state of grace, and if you want to want to have any right to claim to be in keeping with the Tradition. I have discussed the issue of assurance with a MS Lutheran named Nathan, on Called To Communion. The exchange between him and myself begins in comment #178 of the "<a href="http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/10/reformation-sunday-2011-how-would-protestants-know-when-to-return/" rel="nofollow">Reformation Sunday 2011: How Would Protestants Know When to Return?</a>" thread, and continues through comment #274. I think our [yours and mine] discussion on assurance would be more profitable if you first read that discussion between Nathan and myself there.<br /><br />In the peace of Christ,<br /><br />- BryanBryan Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-52153482522227424772012-03-01T18:41:16.225-06:002012-03-01T18:41:16.225-06:00Hello Jamie,
Thanks for your comment. Keep in min...Hello Jamie,<br /><br />Thanks for your comment. Keep in mind that these are two paradigms, and my point in this post isn't so much to criticize either paradigm, but to present the two paradigms as paradigms, and help persons on both sides see the two paradigms. My conclusion (earlier in this process) was that the Catholic paradigm, as such, is not at all easy to refute, or even show to be inferior to the Protestant paradigm. So take my responses below in that way.<br /><br />You write, "Because demons exhibit dead faith, it is highly improper to call it a supernatural gift of God." I don't see how that conclusion follows from that premise. I'll say it more explicitly: that conclusion does not follow from that premise.<br /><br />You write: "Should we not speak of all supernatural gifts as living?" Perhaps if I was 'doing theology' by the seat of my pants, and apart from the tradition, I might speculatively say yes. But your question doesn't provide a basis for the answer. Living faith, according to the tradition of the Church, is faith working through agape. If agape is not present, but the person still sincerely affirms the faith of the Church (e.g. the Creed), his faith is no longer living, even though assenting to the divine mysteries cannot be done by human reason alone, and therefore the faith he possesses (even though not a living faith) is necessarily a supernatural gift of God. No one can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit. So if a man affirms that Jesus Christ is the Son of God come in the flesh, then he has faith. But if at the same time he is living in mortal sin, his faith is both supernatural (since human reason is incapable on its own of affirming the supernatural mysteries), and dead, according to the definition of living faith as "faith working through agape," since one cannot have agape and be living in mortal sin.<br /><br />You write: "Furthermore, if dead faith is a supernatural gift, how can it exist in one who is not in the state of grace, much less in demons?" Because to be in a state of grace means to have both sanctifying grace and agape. So, to not be in a state of grace does not entail anything about the absence of faith; it entails only the absence of sanctifying grace and agape.Bryan Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-9417842834849268542012-03-01T16:21:30.463-06:002012-03-01T16:21:30.463-06:00Continued from above:
For the Reformers, as I have...Continued from above:<br />For the Reformers, as I have shown on Jason Kettinger's blog (http://kettinger.blogspot.com/2012/02/to-certain-enthusiastic-lutherans-this.html) and as I partially alluded to above, the faith that justifies is not merely in the intellect but it resides also and especially in the hearts of believers. In light of that, I will not deny the presence of charity within the faith that saves. Yes, because Protestants do not place faith exclusively in the intellect but place it primarily in the heart, when we say "faith alone" we do not mean what Catholics fear we mean with the term "faith alone." At that level, our disagreement is perhaps merely semantic.<br /><br />Where the real substance of the disagreement lies is in regard to our understanding of what we personally contribute in the acquisition of saving faith. In other words, do we assure ourselves of saving faith on the basis of what we have contributed? We would say it is not by our movement of our own will that saving faith is kindled in our hearts. Saving, living faith coming to be in our hearts we regard as a unilateral work of God. As a result, it is when we see Aquinas speak of the "acts of faith" of the believer and of love preceding faith in the order of perfection, that we must demur. We would not have believers grounding the assurance of their salvation on the degree of the perfection of their faith and love, because we will never be fully sanctified in this life. Furthermore, the discussion of how fully-formed our faith is turns our gaze from the object of our faith--Our Lord Jesus Christ. When we say "faith alone," we really mean "Christ alone." We are trying to communicate that saving faith is that which he alone places in our hearts, not we ourselves. Charity toward God within saving faith we also regard as poured into our hearts from him alone. We can grant charity toward God within saving faith, but only so long as it is not the basis for our justification as something we must contribute in order to perfect faith. This, of course, should naturally lead us into a discussion of anthropological concerns, but that I will leave for another time.<br /><br />Peace,<br />Jamie StoberJamie Stoberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00028730927580530298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-39069507382146641952012-03-01T16:18:40.595-06:002012-03-01T16:18:40.595-06:00Bryan,
I have to say that I found this post very c...Bryan,<br />I have to say that I found this post very constructive and informative. Thank you for the clarity with which you express the teachings of your Church. I'll take a stab at answering the questions you raise for Protestants. In regard to the differences between dead faith and living faith I would have to say that the word faith is being used in different senses in different places in Scripture. The faith that saves, i.e., living faith, and dead faith, which even the demons exhibit, are two different things. Because demons exhibit dead faith, it is highly improper to call it a supernatural gift of God, much less the fact that it is called dead. Should we not speak of all supernatural gifts as living? Furthermore, if dead faith is a supernatural gift, how can it exist in one who is not in the state of grace, much less in demons?<br /><br />If dead faith is not a supernatural gift, how is it different from any belief we might come to merely through our natural power of reason? Dead faith, which we might call natural belief, is merely in the intellect, but living faith is held both in the heart and the mind. I would speak of the difference between the abstract knowledge of things about God vs. the concrete knowledge of God as he is toward us. Why do the biblical writers designate dead faith by the word "faith"? Well, we know that biblical writers do not always use terms univocally, not even individual writers, and the way terms are used may differ from writer to writer. We conclude that Paul and James are using the term "faith" differently and that Paul uses the term in differing senses in Ephesians 2:8 and in 1 Corinthians 13:2.<br /><br />I think the question more central to the issue you are discussing is about how charity can be the fruit of living faith if living faith does not contain charity. This is right at the very heart of the disagreement between our formulations, as Dr. Clark points out. I'm going to approach it slightly differently from how he does, but as he notes in his first comment on this blog post, the reason why "faith alone" vs. faith perfected or formed by charity is Christendom-dividing rests fundamentally on the matter of assurance. Perhaps it would be better to speak about that particular issue in another place, but just as all the issues that divide us have an interconnection with one another, so also it is in this case and especially so. That's why I would like to talk about it if you'll permit me.Jamie Stoberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00028730927580530298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-425744070768566602011-07-13T09:15:10.393-05:002011-07-13T09:15:10.393-05:00Hello Stef,
I scanned the image in myself. It is ...Hello Stef,<br /><br />I scanned the image in myself. It is one of Cardinal Burke's favorite images of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. I don't know the artist or source. Cardinal Burke had an icon made in the Saint Louis Cathedral Basilica, from this painting.<br /><br />In the peace of Christ,<br /><br />- BryanBryan Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-47362820137107111672011-07-13T09:08:09.865-05:002011-07-13T09:08:09.865-05:00I am looking for the image of the sacred heart tha...I am looking for the image of the sacred heart that you have posted for this blog post. Do you know where it came from? Do you gave higher resolution jpg of this image I might be able to have?Chris Blackwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12407334512356100155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-85010989438055539272011-06-02T15:59:13.618-05:002011-06-02T15:59:13.618-05:00Thanks very much, DCF, for your note. Today, Chris...Thanks very much, DCF, for your note. Today, Christ took our humanity into heaven. May God continue to lead us all into full communion with Him, and with each other.<br /><br />In the peace of Christ,<br /><br />- BryanBryan Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-49581028109803775842011-06-02T15:47:20.166-05:002011-06-02T15:47:20.166-05:00Mr. Cross,
This is an old post and you might not ...Mr. Cross,<br /><br />This is an old post and you might not even check the comments (hopefully you do), but I have been reading your blog and CTC (and others) for a while now and I wanted to let you know how much I appreciate your writing and Christ-like attitude. I am a reformed protestant becoming Orthodox and much of my thinking on Sola Scriptura, authority, etc, has been shaped by your writings. Thanks and God Bless. Oh, and this article wasn't bad either ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-41724664913852068792011-05-26T23:55:43.546-05:002011-05-26T23:55:43.546-05:00Kevin,
Thanks for the note and question. I'm ...Kevin,<br /><br />Thanks for the note and question. I'm going to ask you to post your question at the following link:<br /><br />http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/05/wilson-vs-hitchens-a-catholic-perspective/<br /><br />I've written a more thorough post on the subject there. Thanks!<br /><br />In the peace of Christ,<br /><br />- BryanBryan Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-22080558262363281732011-05-26T21:17:38.649-05:002011-05-26T21:17:38.649-05:00Here is a citation from Dr. William Lane Craig'...Here is a citation from Dr. William Lane Craig's book, Reasonable Faith, describing his epistemic starting point: <br /><br />“I think that Dodwell and Plantinga are correct that, fundamentally, the way we know Christianity to be true is by the self-authenticating witness of God’s Holy Spirit. Now what do I mean by that? I mean that the experience of the Holy Spirit is veridical and unmistakable (though not necessarily irresistible or indubitable) for him who has it; that such a person does not need supplementary arguments or evidence in order to know and to know with confidence that he is in fact experiencing the Spirit of God; that such experience does not function in this case as a premise in any argument from religious experience to God, but rather is the immediate experiencing of God himself… that such experiences provide one not only with a subjective assurance of Christianity’s truth, but with objective knowledge of that truth; and that arguments and evidence incompatible with that truth are overwhelmed by the experience of the Holy Spirit for him who attends fully to it.”<br /><br />How would a Thomist make sense of this? And, is this a form of presuppositionalism?<br /><br />Thanks.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08130796758304749726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-55693825782408410842010-07-24T18:33:34.601-05:002010-07-24T18:33:34.601-05:00(continued)
Specifically regarding the complaint ...(continued)<br /><br />Specifically regarding the complaint that the full complement of RC doctrines wasn't found in the Early Fathers: well, they also had, presumably, no explicit Trinitarian formulation, no heresy-combating Christology, not to mention no fully canonized NT scripture itself... where does the right to special-pleading end, for the Protestant; to at once demand prooftexting from the Early Fathers as well as insist that "proximity to the Apostles is no guarantee"? The pretense of interest in historical continuity may as well be dropped and one just ignore any theology from earlier than the 16th century as superfluous.<br /><br />Doctrine develops over time, as is accepted by any Christian who knows any church history, as witness the various Councils over the ages. In any case, it doesn't come conjured out of nowhere (at least, Catholic doctrine doesn't... Lutheran doctrine sure did, though). The so-called "Roman innovations" were doctrines which had already been fully operative notions for centuries and centuries previous... to insist that everything has to be written down <i>first, before</i> they get, well, written down (i.e., ratified in a Church council) is to say that doctrine cannot develop, there may as well not be a Church, and then we're left with pretending that the Bible fell directly out of the sky into our laps a few hundred years ago (i.e., the "evangelical" stance).<br /><br />The Roman Catholic church is radically different from the early Church, you want to say? Yes, as different as an oak tree is from an acorn.micahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05031457169948735603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-15512919815408060392010-07-24T18:33:08.478-05:002010-07-24T18:33:08.478-05:00Well, I'm a bit late to this, but Marty's ...Well, I'm a bit late to this, but Marty's comment certainly needs a reply. It's a prime example of what I have encountered myself - a Protestant appeal to the Church Fathers that <i>both</i> faults the RC Church for having doctrines not found in the Church Fathers <i>and</i> insists that being associated with the early church is no guarantee of correctness. If this isn't special pleading, I don't know what is.<br /><br />Then there's the observation that the churches Paul wrote to "were already in danger of heresy," or some such. Assuming this is relevant to the question at hand, let's follow this thought to its logical conclusion. If the only true deposit of apostolic faith were found in the NT (which was not fully canonized until, oh, about the <i>fourth century</i>), it's pretty shocking that no one realized that until the <i>sixteenth</i> century. It would appear, then, that Paul's exhortations in his epistles all fell on deaf ears and no one carried on his apostolic teachings for more than a millenium even though they nominally carried around his letters as scripture. I guess the Holy Spirit must have fallen asleep on the job, huh? There's another group of people who have it that the true gospel almost immediately went defunct and wasn't "restored" until centuries and centuries and centuries later... they're called Mormons.<br /><br />(continued)micahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05031457169948735603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-70865613180986547362010-07-24T18:31:38.392-05:002010-07-24T18:31:38.392-05:00Well, I'm a bit late to this, but Marty's ...Well, I'm a bit late to this, but Marty's comment certainly needs a reply. It's a prime example of what I have encountered myself - a Protestant appeal to the Church Fathers that <i>both</i> faults the RC Church for having doctrines not found in the Church Fathers <i>and</i> insists that being associated with the early church is no guarantee of correctness. If this isn't special pleading, I don't know what is.<br /><br />Then there's the observation that the churches Paul wrote to "were already in danger of heresy," or some such. Assuming this is relevant to the question at hand, let's follow this thought to its logical conclusion. If the only true deposit of apostolic faith were found in the NT (which was not fully canonized until, oh, about the <i>fourth century</i>), it's pretty shocking that no one realized that until the <i>sixteenth</i> century. It would appear, then, that Paul's exhortations in his epistles all fell on deaf ears and no one carried on his apostolic teachings for more than a millenium even though they nominally carried around his letters as scripture. I guess the Holy Spirit must have fallen asleep on the job, huh? There's another group of people who have it that the true gospel almost immediately went defunct and wasn't "restored" until centuries and centuries and centuries later... they're called Mormons.<br /><br />Specifically regarding the complaint that the full complement of RC doctrines wasn't found in the Early Fathers: well, they also had, presumably, no explicit Trinitarian formulation, no heresy-combating Christology, not to mention no fully canonized NT scripture itself... where does the right to special-pleading end, for the Protestant; to at once demand prooftexting from the Early Fathers as well as insist that "proximity to the Apostles is no guarantee"? The pretense of interest in historical continuity may as well be dropped and one just ignore any theology from earlier than the 16th century as superfluous.<br /><br />Doctrine develops over time, as is accepted by any Christian who knows any church history, as witness the various Councils over the ages. In any case, it doesn't come conjured out of nowhere (at least, Catholic doctrine doesn't... Lutheran doctrine sure did, though). The so-called "Roman innovations" were doctrines which had already been fully operative notions for centuries and centuries previous... to insist that everything has to be written down <i>first, before</i> they get, well, written down (i.e., ratified in a Church council) is to say that doctrine cannot develop, there may as well not be a Church, and then we're left with pretending that the Bible fell directly out of the sky into our laps a few hundred years ago (i.e., the "evangelical" stance).<br /><br />The Roman Catholic church is radically different from the early Church, you want to say? Yes, as different as an oak tree is from an acorn.micahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05031457169948735603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-41077396648507010782010-05-27T05:07:20.254-05:002010-05-27T05:07:20.254-05:00I'd never thought of that before, but Pentecos...I'd never thought of that before, but Pentecost is the un-Babel as it were. When we relied on God instead of our selves we brought back together in language and other ways.Athanasis Contra Mundumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02809651586349621296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-40808521979324398532010-05-02T00:58:52.688-05:002010-05-02T00:58:52.688-05:00Excellent thoughts.
I happily threw monergism to ...Excellent thoughts.<br /><br />I happily threw monergism to winds some time ago, after reading Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, and Iv'e never looked back. Scripture positively shouts Synergism. For example: "When the wicked man turneth from his wickedness, and doeth that which is lawful and right, HE shall save his soul alive." Hard to see monocausilism in that, no? <br /><br />I love this blog. Keep up the great work!Hygelachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14484398060002108659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-42336079182916846112010-04-23T19:02:12.097-05:002010-04-23T19:02:12.097-05:00Congrats!!
It will be 6 years for me on April 30th...Congrats!!<br />It will be 6 years for me on April 30th.<br />Never have I regretted it and the Church and all the graces He gives me through it continue to amaze and bless us!Russ Rentler, M.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/00659833542780220795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-15826190252877628042010-04-22T15:26:42.193-05:002010-04-22T15:26:42.193-05:00Deo Gratias for 5 years!
God grant you many more!Deo Gratias for 5 years!<br />God grant you many more!contrarian 78https://www.blogger.com/profile/06104559106619389825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-62387566676219712542010-04-06T10:12:42.344-05:002010-04-06T10:12:42.344-05:00I'm very grateful for your analysis of the iMo...I'm very grateful for your analysis of the iMonk. Great job. I, too, have been blessed and have had my eyes opened by his writings (as well as yours). Yes, I greatly appreciate his efforts to educate and reduce the ignorance and prejudice through his evaluations of the similarities and differences of our faiths. I am pleased to see such respect presented here; thank you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com